The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases of insurance cover cancellation and the subsistence of the cover at the time of the accident.

” Appellant-insurer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of this appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ' the MV Act' ) and has called in question the award, dated 30th June, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tribunal' ) in M.A.C. Petition No. 1-S/02 of 2006, titled as Mohan Lal versus Kishan Lal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.7,14,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the appellant-insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ' the impugned award' ), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

2. The claimant and the drivers-cum-owners and the insurer of the scooter have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

Brief facts:

3. The claimant had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that he became the victim of motor vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Shri Kishan Lal, while driving the car, bearing registration No. HP-01 A-0722, rashly and negligently on 23rd October, 2005, near Bye Pass Solan.

4. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 5th April, 2007:

' 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of an accident involving vehicle bearing No. HP-01 A-0722 and scooter bearing No. HR-12 D-2329 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles by respondent Nos. 1 & 4? ...OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount? ...OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? ...OPR-1-2 & 4-5

4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his own acts, deeds and conduct from filing the present petition? ...OPR-1&2

5. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Car by respondent No. 1, as alleged? ...OPR-4&5

6. Whether the Car No. HP-01 A-0722 was not insured with the respondent No.3? ...OPR-3

7. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent Nos. 4 & 5? ...OPR-4&5

8. Whether the driver of the Car was not holding valid & effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-3

9. Whether the registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit papers of the Car were not valid nor effective? ...OPR-3

10. Whether the scooter was not insured with respondent No. 6? ...OPR-6

11. Whether the driver of the scooter was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-6

12. Whether the scooter was not validly registered, if so, its effect? ...OPR-6

13. Whether the petitioner was pillion rider on the scooter and the respondent No. 6 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner? ...OPR-6

14. Relief.'

Issue No. 1:

6. After scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the Tribunal held that the claimant has proved that the driver, Shri Kishan Lal, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. car, bearing registration No. HP-01 A-0722, rashly and negligently on 23rd October, 2005 and hit the scooter, bearing registration No. HR-12D-2329, and the claimant sustained injuries. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant and against driver of the car, namely Shri Kishan Lal. The findings returned on this issue are not in dispute, are upheld.

Issues No. 3 to 13 :

7. The findings returned on issue Nos. 3 to 13 are also not in dispute for the reason that the claimant, owners-cum-drivers and the insurer of the scooter have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue Nos. 3 to 13 are also upheld.

Issue No. 2:

8. The only dispute in this appeal is - whether the owner-cum-driver of the car is to satisfy the award for the reason tha